Jump to content

User talk:JugulatorJJ

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 2021

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2020 Q4–January 2021), did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please do not delete citations, while some things (such as content of an article) may be rendered incorrect with time, they can still be useful. Thanks! Brownlowe.2 (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

[edit]

Hi,

I wanted to let you know I manually undid some of your edit here: [1] at the 2024 United States presidential election article where you placed Donald Trump first in the list of potential candidates from the Republican Party. According to WP:NPOV, they should be listed alphabetically to ensure impartiality. Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that being in an edit war can get you blocked. You've been reverted multiple times. I suggest you reach WP:CONSENSUS on the issue before making any other edits. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

[edit]

Information icon Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Labour Party (UK). Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you. — Czello 14:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not incorrect. Labour are not "centre-left" in the slightest. JugulatorJJ (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JugulatorJJ: That might be your opinion, but we go on what the sources say. — Czello 20:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The claim of "centre-left" wasn't sourced either though... JugulatorJJ (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JugulatorJJ: Yes it is. We avoid citations in the lead, which is why it wasn't there. — Czello 21:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing Wikipedia for over decade. Don't try and BS me fake rules you just made up. JugulatorJJ (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JugulatorJJ: Try reading MOS:CITELEAD. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material . . . The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus . . . The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. The fact that there are innumerable citations later in the article calling Labour centre-left, and given that this is an uncontroversial statement, we didn't need them in the lead. And besides, even if it wasn't sourced, it doesn't somehow make it right for you to insert your own opinion into the article. An editor "for over a decade" should know this. — Czello 21:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

[edit]

Thank you for adding a source to your changes on Static X. No one is trying to "keep up a facade" or anything silly like that. We just need to add sources when we add content to Wikipedia, and no one, except for you on your second attempt, bothered to add a source. I'm not entirely sure why you identify as an editor for over a decade, but didn't bother to add a source when you added content, but please do it on the first time around moving forward. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 23:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mayor of London, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leader of the Conservative Party. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi it's now been fixed. I meant for it to link to the UK page. JugulatorJJ (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

[edit]

Please explain your contributions using a descriptive edit summary. Changing information on Wikipedia (such as numbers and dates) without explanation, as you did at Exodus (American band), may be confused with vandalism. And stop adding Let There Be Blood to the discography section. It IS a compilation album, not a studio album. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it's a studio album. It is 100% original recording, recorded at the same time and not previously released. How does that fit the definition of a "compilation"? Everything on it is new. JugulatorJJ (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to engage in subtle vandalism by making unexplained changes to information, you may be blocked from editing. Also, stop removing the "and Ellefson's second departure" part in that section about their new album. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalism I stated facts. You haven't presented a valid counter-argument. You baselessly accused me of vandalism. Please refrain from doing so. JugulatorJJ (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism or not, you removed that part about Ellefson's second departure after I told you to stop it. I will report you over at WP:AIV, if this BS doesn't stop. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if you "told me to stop". Wikipedia doesn't belong to you. Anyone is allowed to edit it not just you. I removed it because it was inconsistent with the rest of the headings only being album titles and also there's barely a sentence regarding the matter in the section so why does it warrant being part of the heading when not even 1% of the section covers the topic? Nah I think i'll report you. Making demands and threats acting like you own the site or something. JugulatorJJ (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bailey Jay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Presenter.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

[edit]

Information icon Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to First Lady of the United States. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's literally already mentioned and sourced in the top part of the article that the First Lady doesn't have to be the president's wife. Why must the same fact be sourced twice? JugulatorJJ (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Template:Joe Biden, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop adding the VPOTUS seal on the template. Now that Biden is POTUS, that's the emblem he gets - everything else is just clutter. Vjmlhds 18:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

    • It's not "disruptive editing" in the slightest. Stop sending me block threats over false allegations. JugulatorJJ (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, Vjmlhds is right, and you are edit warring in that template--plus, it kind of points to WP:CIR that you'd say "well he was VP too". That is not a reason: the man has been tons of things, but POTUS is the most highest, and that should be the image in there. So, you keep getting messages from people saying your edits are disruptive, and you keep arguing with them, and complaining about threats--but I am an administrator, and if you keep this up, I will indeed block you. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I actually changed my tune on the issue. I took the idea of the additional seals and added to it. Nothing wrong with adding the appropriate emblems to the templates as long as they are jobs/titles detailed on top of the template and the images are free use. I repeal my warning. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Stop Funding Hate. — Czello 18:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

[edit]

Information icon Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Megadeth. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Just because it's known that Megadeth has a new bassist, but his identity hasn't been confirmed yet, doesn't mean it's necessary to be added on Wikipedia. Be patient. Patience is a virtue. MetalDiablo666 (talk)

Why are the rules different for other bands such as Slipknot? "Tortilla Man" was listed in the members section despite his identity not being known. Why is it one rule for one band and one rule for another? JugulatorJJ (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Template:Metallica, you may be blocked from editing. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 00:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Template:Metallica. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 01:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Clint Eastwood filmography. @Daniel Case: Please take a look at this user's recent activity. They have continued to vandalize articles, going against talk page discussions and MoS guidelines. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Putting the correct film credit in a filmography is not vandalism. Please explain how I vandalised the page? User:Some Dude From North Carolina is a liar and should be banned for his vandalism and false reports. JugulatorJJ (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As explained to you several times, it is allowed and preferred to sort roles by WP:COMMONNAMES if most readers will recognize them. For example, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly does not include a "Clint Eastwood as [role]" credit but he is referred to as "Man with No Name" by universally every professional critic and moviegoers. This makes sorting easier and helps readers when doing so. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Commonname doesn't apply to film credits. Like I said "Man With No Name" isn't even a name it's a claim he has no name but he's credited as and referred to as Blondie multiple times in the film. Like I said "Man With No Name" article can appear in the notes section as a see also but to say the character's actual name and credit must not appear on a FILMOGRAPHY is absolutely ridiculous. It doesn't matter if "critics" call him that. (I also challenge you on that false claim. Everyone knows he's called Blondie.) JugulatorJJ (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plain and simple: However, some topics have multiple names, and some names have multiple topics; this can lead to disagreement about which name should be used for a given article's title. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which is Blondie... JugulatorJJ (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeatedly added "Joe" and "Manco" to the article... Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's what they're called in the films duh.... JugulatorJJ (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But not how they are credited (WP:COMMONNAME). Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually is how they're credited. JugulatorJJ (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The films do not have "Actor as role" credits, and per WP:FILMCAST: All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James LoMenzo

[edit]

Hi, I manually reverted your edit here [2] that added LoMenzo as performing on the upcoming Megadeth album as LoMenzo will just be the touring bassist, not the studio bassist: [3]]

Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 04:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Megadeth band members, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bass.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Template:Megadeth, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. A touring member and an official member aren't the same thing. The only time it's appropriate to restore James LoMenzo to the current members list is WHEN and IF Megadeth makes a statement to confirm that he's an official member rather than just a touring member, so by all means, have some patience. As I've told you before, patience is a virtue. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 01:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He's playing in the band. There is no separation method for current and touring members in templates so they go in the same active section. JugulatorJJ (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Megadeth. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Daniel Case, please look at this user's activity across the template, main article and members article – they are not listening. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 00:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And please note ... the next time, should there be one, will be indefinite. Daniel Case (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it is User:4TheWynne (It's "Win" by the way) who isn't listening but I suppose you can't expect much from a guy who can't even spell "Win". JugulatorJJ (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I love how I was one of about five editors who reverted your recent edits and yet it's all my fault. Good on you for working out the pronunciation of my surname (obvious as it is) – want a medal? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 02:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you were one of five editors who caused the page to be switched to ADMIN ONLY EDITING. *slow claps* JugulatorJJ (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're not including yourself... David O. Johnson (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Juglator, your behavior here is very unacceptable. You blame those "five editors" (I guess that includes me) who recently reverted your changes and say one of them wasn't listening in response to the fact that James LoMenzo hasn't officially rejoined Megadeth yet? Clearly you're not aware that there's a big difference between a touring member and an official member: an official member is a member who has joined or rejoined the band permanently and a touring member is a member who is only involved with a band or artist for just live shows. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No it's you who is apparently unable to read that TOURING WAS PUT IN BRACKETS!!!! HERPPDEEEEEDERRRPPPPPP! JugulatorJJ (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it seems you didn't know the difference between a touring member and an official band member. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I may try one final time to get through to you (even though it would appear I was somewhat late to the party), putting "touring" in brackets is not an excuse to put him with the official members. It doesn't matter if he a touring member, session member, the band's new manager... he only goes in official members if he is an official member, otherwise leave him in former or touring members. Please consider this if/when you return. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 04:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jugulator, you are seriously making me reconsider my decision to not block you indefinitely. I may not yet do that, but I'm a lot closer to cutting your access to this page off and extend the block thanks to that fireworks display above. If I see any more of it ... Daniel Case (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lmao why are you acting like being permanently banned from Wikipedia is some kind of a threat? I don't care. Not gonna lose any money from being banned am I? Only thing you'll lose is a great editor. Your loss not mine bro. JugulatorJJ (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jugulator, dude, you sound like you're either delusional, paranoid or suffering from a mental illness, or you at least have some problem (an anger problem, perhaps?). Whatever this is, I recommend you go see a doctor and get it checked out, or just get some help, while you remain banned from Wikipedia for an entire month. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MetalDiablo666, as poor as their behaviour has been, I wouldn't go casting those aspersions. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 10:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4TheWynne, you're right. I'll admit that it was very harsh of me to think or describe Jugulator like that, or I will say that just couldn't think of something better or positive to say. But yes his or her actions did sound like someone who has a problem. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stop hand
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Daniel Case (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Would everyone please leave Jugulator alone and give him a half year to grow up? Daniel Case (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case, sounds reasonable; thanks for being all over it. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 04:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Case I came here because I was looking at another article the editor had contributed to (completely unrelated to music) and was curious why the editor was blocked. I see no problem of blocking an editor for edit-warring. But I didn't see any gross abuse of this editor's talk page that required loss of talk-page access. (I am assuming the talk-page abuse was these three edits: [4][5][6]). I It looks like countless cases I have seen of new editors who don't understand our rules, think they are right when they aren't, and throw a temper tantrum filled with ad hominems when taken to task. I have seen far worse, even from experienced editors and even long-term admins. I suggest talk page access be restored, and they be given a chance to reflect on their behavior and be given an opportunity to apologize for newbie mistakes and to ask questions about why their were blocked if they don't understand. I also think it would be helpful to have any appeals by the editor be public rather than be limited to emails we can't see. --David Tornheim (talk)
Well, this is Jug's third block for this sort of thing. And I had the feeling that if I didn't muzzle him, this talk page was going to go on in the high-school cafeteria direction it went above. I should also point out that in none of his previous blocks did Jug request unblock; frankly I wouldn't expect him to now, and the likelihood that he'd use the unblock request for personal attacks or further incivility (the block is really for that as much as the edit warring). Take note also that when I warned him this was possible, he indicated no desire to tone it down.

Really, not making this indefinite is me being merciful. Daniel Case (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Tornheim, I see where you're coming from, but I have to agree with Daniel Case – I think you're being a bit kind there (and that Daniel is as well for not blocking indefinitely, like he said, but happy to see if it invokes change). It should also be noted that this user has been asked several times to discuss their edits at talk/template talk pages, but has not utilised one in over two months (see here and here). I would argue further that the user knew exactly what they were doing and why they were blocked, on all three occasions, and was just going to keep edit warring until they either got their way or were blocked long-term; again, though, happy to see what happens. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 10:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4TheWynne Thanks for the reply. Again, I take no issue with blocking edits to articles because of unacceptable edit-waring. But my concern is the editor is a newbie and probably doesn't actually understand our rules, but *thinks* s/he does, and until now didn't realize there were consequences. I can't tell you how many times I have found editors who never use the talk page, never use edit summaries, after being asked to and repeatedly admonished, yet are still allowed to edit articles with at most a slap on the wrist of a 24-hour block. I just haven't really seen anything here on the talk page that looks like a long-term problem, but just a knee-jerk angry response of F.U. after their first block. I do agree the editor's behavior is puerile.
After writing that, I looked more carefully and see it was not the first block. I support the increasing length of blocks. I guess the revocation of talk-page access is to send a stronger message that there are consequences for entirely disregarding our rules, and so the editor doesn't have to be dealt with until they have had the required time off. I guess that makes some sense, even though if the choice were mine, I would likely give the editor a chance to learn the ropes and admit wrongdoing and make promises to follow our rules. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be wary of describing this user as a newbie. To quote them in March from above "I've been editing Wikipedia for over decade. Don't try and BS me fake rules you just made up.", while I saw them posting something similar elsewhere about editing Wikipedia for over a decade, while they have also demonstrated a good enough grasp of policies and how the community operates. I'll assume they've previously been editing as an IP User, but they're certainly not new to Wikipedia. LittleDwangs (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware of such claims by the user. User page and edit history that only goes back to 2021 seemed like newbie, but I didn't check edit counts or quality of edits, combativeness, etc. Sounds like editor got to be a real problem. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JugulatorJJ is evading his block

[edit]

@Daniel Case: Hi, I just thought you'd like to know JugulatorJJ is clearly evading his block with the IP 92.234.204.74. Looking through their contributions is like a mirror. I'm sure you're aware JugulatorJJ regularly edited heavy metal artists' articles as well as articles relating to politics, like timelines of Joe Biden's presidency and so on. My tip-off was the IP editor returning to Template:Meat Loaf to make an almost identical edit to JugulatorJJ—trying to list a Ted Nugent album Meat Loaf contributed to as an album by Meat Loaf by extension. Also quite telling this IP editor started regularly editing in September, not long after Jugulator's block. Ss112 13:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: as info, indef'd after evasion as Rickenbacker4003S. -- ferret (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JugulatorJJ&oldid=1099437042"